Tilahun asked participants:
  • Their suggestions for naming this platform?
  • How far should this platform go?
  • Where do we contribute with SLM without competing?
  • Where are the opportunities for us to explore?


Feedback from the particpants on the questions raised:
  • On the naming different suggestions and ideas:
    • Natural resource management (independent national platform)
    • Environment should be included to address health issues
    • Naming is not an issue as we will be judged by our outcomes. We need to think about outcomes. NBDC is left only with 18 months

  • On contributions to SLM:
    • SLM ‘s objective to improve the productivity of land and align the land mgt. efforts in a harmonized way so that all partners work towards the improvement of the land. Communal land mgt. small scale irrigation, etc. lots of activities. NRM is also done by SLM.
    • SLM has its own platform (from federal level to Kebelle). The same platform is organized at all levels. Maybe this platform can assist sideways. (Technical committee).
    • It depends on the mandate of the platform (if it is for advocacy), the govt. is against too many initiatives. MoA has different pillars and this platform can fit into this
    • We should switch from SLM
    • SLM works in 177 areas chosen by the government. Is this platform going to be limited to this selected areas.



Next step:
  • Proceeding will be produced
  • How do we sustain our platform (survive and have its own facilitators full time) to consider it seriously.
  • Simon to communicate with participants the next meetings.
  • Participants to sign up with the working groups